Meta: there are lots of video posts tagged "[video] (youtube)", which is redundant, and gives no information beyond that it's a video. Could that second half mention the YouTube channel that's being referenced? That would be the equivalent of most website references. Perhaps "[video] (youtube.com/@Clough42)"?
It only seems redundant in this case because YouTube is well known for only serving videos. If you look at other articles you will see that it is a system that identifies the doc-type and the host name for the article. Your might also see [video](bbc.co.uk) in which case there is no redundancy.
You will see a lot of articles marked [PDF](somesite.com) indicating that the doctype is PDF rather and the default html page. There may be other doc types like that but those are the most common. I have not notice a list of possible values anywhere.
that's doesn't seem like a bad idea to me, but how would that be different than having the author's name attached to all submissions? we see wsj.com, nyt.com, etc all the time with no other metadata.
i get the label for [PDF] and what not, but does anyone think a link to youtube.com is NOT going to be a video?
